Headlines

PTR

Electoral college fixes could backfire on the GOP

If some Republican leaders had their way, states in which the GOP controls legislatures and governors’ offices soon would reshape election laws.

Maine and Nebraska moved away from a winner-takes-all system of awarding Electoral College votes to one that allocates them by congressional districts. The concept could quietly gain momentum during the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting here, though many GOP members caution that changing the way states bestow electoral votes could backfire and hurt governors and congressional candidates. …

President Obama won the popular vote in November with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College, 332-206. If states awarded electoral votes proportionally, it’s unclear whether he would have been re-elected.

In Pennsylvania, Pileggi’s new plan would award two votes to the winner of the popular vote statewide and then divide the 18 congressional districts based on the percentage of the popular vote each presidential candidate received.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The more states we have awarding EV’s by CD the better, IMHO. Besides acting like a voter fraud containment mechanism, it will keep the super-concentrated urban areas from disenfranchising everyone else in outlying areas up to hundreds of miles away.

Other critics charge that such a system would cause presidential candidates to visit less often and to advertise only in districts that appear to be in play. In Pennsylvania, that could mean millions of lost dollars for broadcasting stations in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, where congressional seats surround solidly Democratic cities.

Less political ads on TV and fewer advertising dollars for the liberal media – I’m sold.

Given other highlights of the GOP campaign strategy — refusing to allow the 2000 Florida recount to go forward, mounting a bogus impeachment campaign, backing voter suppression laws in the name of “ballot security” it’s clear that the Republicans have no actual commitment to the democratic process at all ans are, in fact, attempting to engineer a slow-motion coup.

Having rigged the House through redistricting — Democrats won more popular votes while Republicans took more seats — the disloyal opposition seeks to cheat at the presidential level.

Given other highlights of the GOP campaign strategy — refusing to allow the 2000 Florida recount to go forward, mounting a bogus impeachment campaign, backing voter suppression laws in the name of “ballot security” it’s clear that the Republicans have no actual commitment to the democratic process at all ans are, in fact, attempting to engineer a slow-motion coup.

There are only 2 reasons we are even having this discussion.
1) The incredible polarization, constantly fed and encouraged by the current administration,which to a great degree is really an urban v rural dynamic.
2) The 17th Amendment which eliminated the portion of the constitution that would have specifically eliminated almost all of this problem. If state legislators still elected senators, all of this would be balanced out without any screwing around with state electoral systems. The absolute fix to this is repeal of the 17th amendment which would also to a great degree increase the checks and balances between/within the bicameral congress and the executive.

If I could make one and only one change to the Constitution, while my emotional self would delete the penumbra in the 2A leaving, “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, my analytic, CEO-type self would fully repeal the 17th which I honestly think would restore much, if not most, of the balance to our government and make revising the 2A language unnecessary.

Bad plan. The principal effect of a winner-take-all Electoral College system is to reduce the electoral battlespace to about a dozen purple “battleground” states. Political campaigns don’t pay much attention to the other 38 states.

Switching to a proportional representation system will change that. Suddenly campaigns will be incentivized to fight in every “purple” Congressional District in the country. That takes a lot more money (more even than the outrageously absurd amount of money spent this cycle) and manpower.

Ds and Rs are pretty fairly matched on money. But Ds have a far larger and better organized grassroots, thanks largely to unions and black churches.

So guess who will be able to turn that system to their advantage better?

Given other highlights of the GOP campaign strategy — *** backing voter suppression laws in the name of “ballot security” it’s clear that the Republicans have no actual commitment to the democratic process at all ans are, in fact, attempting to engineer a slow-motion coup. ***

urban elitist on January 25, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Oh come off it. We’ve had Voter ID and related ballot security laws (like the one that removes dead people from the polls) in this country for a decade. Yet somehow, despite all this “voter suppression,” Obama had the largest black and poor voter turnout in modern history in 2012.

The more states we have awarding EV’s by CD the better, IMHO. Besides acting like a voter fraud containment mechanism, it will keep the super-concentrated urban areas from disenfranchising everyone else in outlying areas up to hundreds of miles away.

crrr6 on January 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM
——

1
disenfranchising? You cannot possibly be so stupid as to suggest that higher populations in cities make elections unfair

2
there is no voter fraud

3
how come the EC winner take all system wasn’t a problem when Bush won 2 in a row

The headline doesnt match the article. They say it could backfire, but there is not one example or one quote in the article that supports that. A bunch of people saying they would look at it, but not even a theoretical explanation of how it might backfire.

In a predominately black, 99% (D) city near my parents, the last few elections have resulted in (D) vote totals exceeding the entire voting age population of the city, not even just the number registered voters. When a caucasian county official (family friend) suggested that there may be some irregularity in the vote counting if you end up with a (D) vote total 110% of the voting age population, he was roundly attacked and criticized for being racist. The predominate (D) county and state refused to investigate and simply played the race card at every turn.

Most of my live I’ve lived and worked in the south Chicago suburbs and northwest Indiana. These are areas where Obama beat Romney by 30+ points, and that haven’t elected a Republican to either Congress or the state House in decades. And your observation that vote fraud usually entails one faction of Dems disenfranchising another competing faction of Dems is spot on, at least in my neck of the woods.

You do realize that Stonewall Jackson conducted Sunday School for black children and wanted to see “the shackles struck from every slave”

topdawg on January 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Doesn’t matter. He’s a Southerner and fought for the Confederacy, in which slavery was an accepted practice. Therefore, he must be racist. Leftist ideology doesn’t allow for a nuanced view of individuals in this particular case.

The more states we have awarding EV’s by CD the better, IMHO. Besides acting like a voter fraud containment mechanism, it will keep the super-concentrated urban areas from disenfranchising everyone else in outlying areas up to hundreds of miles away.

crrr6 on January 25, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Agreed. If Illinois had this, more republicans would be out there minimizing Crooks county.

3
how come the EC winner take all system wasn’t a problem when Bush won 2 in a row

Dave Rywall on January 25, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Dumass Canuck. It was a problem in Oo & 04. If it had been proportional, Bush would have won by a greater ECV and maybe even goosed the popular vote in his favor. To wit, a State like MI etc, why vote when your red district would be discounted by the greater populations in the blue districts.